38 comments:

It's not that he put up a picture of a naked baby. It's that he close cropped the damn thing so what had been a wide screen picture of Giselle and the child became just a picture of the kid sort of quarter facing the camera, and he titled it "Look At The Howitzer On Brady's Kid" and made several other sexual remarks about the kid and Brady and Giselle.

That's why some people are upset. He didn't just post a picture of a naked kid. There'd be nothing wrong with that--or shouldn't be. He objectified the kid.

My family used to have a tradition of taking pictures of siblings or cousins (toddler or younger) together in a bath, then pull them out around the time the kid(s) graduated high school. The mothers in my family seem to relish pulling those out on prom night.

For some strange reason, this practice has fallen out of favor. We still, of course, do the 1-year-old birthday pics where the baby is given a big slice of ridiculously over-icing'd chocolate cake, but how long until FLOTUS' junk food nazis make THAT unpalatable?

"... he titled it "Look At The Howitzer On Brady's Kid" and made several other sexual remarks about the kid and Brady and Giselle."

There was a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" like that.

Is being naked and having genitalia pornographic? We admire the various physical attributes of our kids. Is it really the case that there is one part of a boy that you're supposed to pretend does not exist? I mean, I know that is the social norm, but is it a crime to admire your child in all his glory, including that?

This might be so deeply wired that we can't help it. I don't know any man who's had a son that doesn't admit to feeling this way...even about "that". Given the anatomy aspect of it, I suppose there's no applicable mom/daughter similar situation.

I will say this...I love my daughters immensely, but I'm finding myself bonding much more quickly and deeply with my 2-year-old son than I did when they were that age. I don't know if it's because of "that"...

That's it's the MA state fuzz, and not some fascist redneck racist state like MS, "suggesting" (in the manner of "Do you still haf relatives in Chermany?") they be taken down is what makes this one more poster child for the corruption of the Left.

Yes, what Portnoy did is exploitive and no class whatsoever, but the point about the Nirvana album is valid.

chickenlittle said...

Howard Stern took a massive dump on the airwaves a long time ago. These days, only certain people take him sirusly.

Child pornography in Wisconsin is defined as a recording or picture of a child (<18) engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 948.12. Sexually Explicit Conduct is defined as (among other things) "Lewd exhibition of intimate parts."

The picture itself could never be called child pornography because a 2 year old playing naked on a beach is not "lewd," but by adding the caption it changes the context quite a bit. Is it "lewd" now? If I were this guy, I'd be pretty happy a jury won't be deciding that.

Beyond the legal definitions, however, by putting the picture on the internet, he gave every pervert in the world access to naked pictures of Tom Bradey's kid. This isn't something you can take back. The only reason why possession of child pornography is still illegal and not protected by the first amendment is because child pornography continues to harm children by perpetuating the original exploitation from when the pictures were originally taken.

I'm glad everyone involved is acting rationally, but if the parents decided to sue, they'd be within their rights.

Is being naked and having genitalia pornographic? We admire the various physical attributes of our kids. Is it really the case that there is one part of a boy that you're supposed to pretend does not exist? I mean, I know that is the social norm, but is it a crime to admire your child in all his glory, including that?

Right about now the Althouse-Cohen boys are feeling a little, um, uncomfortable now about mom's lifelong photography hobby, and perhaps slightly more understanding of the guy who smacked her camera away.

This goes beyond baby pictures; when I hear people describing the hidden pornographic meanings behind all sorts of things, including, but not limited to, animated disney movies, I conclude that the speaker is a major pervert.

Even with genuine porn, I find that the critics to a whole lot of projection. (The most project, though, is done with nudie pics. I've a sister-in-law who thinks Victoria Secret Catalogs are pornographic magazines.)

Toddlers engaging in "sexually explicit conduct" ... reminds me of an old picture I had seen.

A little boy. And, a little girl. Each one looking inside their "drawers." And, the tag line said:

"There is a difference."

Plus, how many people remember the baths they took as cihldren ... where both boys and girls were in the tub, together?

Back in those days these pictures were captured on film. And, nobody got arrested ... when the film was taken to the store for development.

You know, you can go to Amazon. And, buy "boy and girl" dolls ... with the "real parts" showing. (A woman got in trouble, too. Because her little girl took her doll to the pool. And, the lifeguard went nuts.)

I take it you'd be fine with the paparazzi snapping pictures of your kids naked, putting them online where everyone (everyone) can find them forever, and specifically calling specific attention (albeit metaphorically) to their genitals?

We're not talking about parents snapping pictures of their own kids here. It's a non-sequitur. No one's even being charged here, so the criminal "child pornography" issue is also a red herring. I think the only real question here is "is this wrong?"

Yes... yes it is. The blogger should be ashamed, and if Brady felt vindictive, he could be sued.

Who's the kid on the nirvana album? I don't know... does anyone? I actually haven't seen the picture, and I'm not about to google "nirvana naked kid" so I also don't know if it's actually a photograph.

Everyone knows who the naked kid in these pictures is. And again... this was done WITHOUT CONSENT.

Thanks for the info. That's not the cover I was thinking of, and I think there's another album at some point that was controversial for maybe being child pornography...

Either way, Wikipedia had some interesting stuff to say.

"Five shots resulted and the band settled on the image of a three-month-old infant named Spencer Elden, the son of the photographer's friend. However, there was some concern because Elden's penis was visible in the image. Geffen prepared an alternate cover without the penis, as they were afraid that it would offend people, but relented when Cobain made it clear that the only compromise he would accept was a sticker covering the penis that would say, "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."[59]"

Not to dispute your whole argument (or change the subject), Joe, but the Disney thing isn't just "projection." Maybe not "pornographic," but REALLY?

I can't see youtube right now, but if you dont' think there is anything in disney movies check out the preacher in the original little mermaid (I believe it was edited out of later editions). Cartoons are drawn by adults, sometimes they sneak things in.

I never thought about the baby in Nervermind being an issue. I think because he's just swimming so it's like he's in a bath. But now I wonder what that kid, who has to be 20ish by now, thinks of it. Maybe he thinks it's awesome.

BTW, I don't think it was kiddie porn, just a classless and tasteless thing from a classless and tasteless guy. I don't think sending the cops after him was necessary--unless you really want to cause him some pain.

As for admiring your kid, as Ann said--that's fine. But if you specifically target the 2 year old son of someone you don't even know--isn't that a little wrong?

Brady didn't post the pictures, and Brady has said "no comment" when asked and Brady asked the local sports radio station (who've been killing Portnoy, and have banned him from their air in the future) not to bring it up when he made his regular Monday morning appearance.

BTW, someone should tell Carol "Crazy Eyes" Herman that there's a difference between the Coppertone ad and cropping and blowing up a picture of a naked 2 year old's pecker so you can make the comment about the size of the pecker. That may not quite be porn--but it sure is kinda creepy.

It's not really kiddie porn, but sexualizing a child by putting lewd Perez Hilton style captions on paparazzi shots is way over the line.

As far as the Nirvana cover goes, there's no comparison. The baby in that photo wasn't sexualized in any way. He was just swimming after a dollar. If you look at a picture like that and think "porn", then you have a problem.

The cover of the Scorpions album Virgin Killer, on the other hand? That was pretty sick.

You wouldn't want to risk your star quarterback for something like that. Besides, that's what he has offensive linemen for.

Granted, Ignorance, if one is to be entirely level headed about this, then Brady's agent should make a phone call. A short while later an anonymous man bearing an envelope full of money and a picture of Portnoy would enter a seedy bar. A little while after that, a large man with a sloping forehead would walk out with the picture and envelope in his pocket.

But as a father, I think all that should be set aside in favor of Brady getting to enjoy the moment himself.